Open Science in Practice: Building an Institutional Roadmap

Define the institution's purpose

Open science should help an institution make research more transparent, accessible and useful. Begin by identifying the barriers that currently prevent people from finding, understanding or building on its work. These may include inaccessible publications, poorly documented data, fragmented records or a lack of support for sharing.

UNESCO's open-science framework includes access to knowledge, infrastructure, engagement with society and dialogue across knowledge systems. ^[1] An institutional roadmap should translate relevant principles into practical commitments. It should not reduce open science to a publication-payment fund or a requirement to upload every file without review.

Establish a baseline with researchers and support teams

Map current practices across disciplines. Identify repositories, publication agreements, data services, training, ethical review and research assessment. Ask researchers what prevents responsible sharing and what support they already use. Include library, IT, legal, research-office and community perspectives where relevant.

Distinguish a policy gap from a capacity gap. Researchers may support sharing but lack suitable storage, time for documentation or clarity about rights. Students and smaller departments may face different barriers from well-funded teams. A useful baseline records these differences and identifies priorities the institution can realistically address.

Set a focused policy and governance structure

Define the scope of the policy, responsible roles and relationship with funder, publisher and legal requirements. Explain expectations for publications, data, code and other outputs in terms appropriate to each discipline. Include a process for justified restrictions and for resolving uncertainty.

Assign an accountable owner and a cross-functional implementation group. Establish how decisions will be reviewed and how researchers can obtain advice. Avoid issuing broad obligations without services or resources to support them. A policy should make responsible practice easier to understand and carry out, not merely increase the number of declarations collected.

Build services and skills together

Provide access to suitable repositories, persistent identifiers, metadata support and data-management advice. Offer practical training on documentation, licensing, version control and responsible communication. Use discipline-specific examples so researchers can see how the principles apply to their work.

UNESCO's implementation guidance links policy with infrastructure, capacity development and research culture. ^[2] Institutions can begin with a small set of supported workflows rather than attempting a complete transformation at once. For example, a library-supported publication deposit service may be paired with a pilot for preparing reusable datasets in two departments.

Illustrative example: a small college research roadmap

Imagine a college where faculty publish in different journals but the institution has no reliable record of outputs. Its first phase could establish an accurate research register, clarify deposit permissions and train staff to describe their work. The next phase might support data-management plans and selected repository deposits.

A pilot team could document the time required, recurring questions and barriers faced by researchers with limited funding. The institution would then adjust support before extending requirements. Success would be judged by discoverable, understandable outputs and improved practice, not simply by the number of uploaded files or public declarations of openness.

Align incentives and protect legitimate boundaries

Recognise contributions such as well-documented data, reusable software, responsible peer review and community collaboration where appropriate. If promotion and recognition value only publication counts, open practices may remain additional unpaid work. Discuss how evidence of contribution can be assessed fairly across disciplines.

At the same time, protect participant confidentiality, intellectual property, cultural rights and legitimate security concerns. Some material requires controlled access or cannot be shared. Record reasons and consider whether metadata or a less sensitive version can be made available. Openness should not shift costs or risks onto less powerful partners and communities.

Monitor progress through useful indicators

• Researchers can locate the applicable policy and support contacts.
• Outputs have accurate metadata and stable access routes.
• Data plans identify responsibilities and justified restrictions.
• Training reaches different departments and career stages.
• Repository deposits are usable, not merely numerous.
• Research assessment recognises appropriate open contributions.
• Feedback leads to revisions in services and policy.

Publish a proportionate progress report and revisit priorities regularly. Include unresolved barriers and the resources needed to address them. A credible roadmap is an evolving institutional commitment supported by services, people and review, with transparency about both achievements and limitations.